I am not a delegate, but I would like to join Marokai Blue in saying that I view universalism as potentially being very destructive to the Atlasian system. I'm sorry now that I did not run to be a delegate, as my fear of being rejected by my fellow party members has prevented me from being able to vote against the universalist proposals before one of them left the convention floor.

I too would like to express that I think universalism would end up killing the Atlasian system

X $Dan$(Devilman88), a begging citzen

Do you care explaining why?

Logged

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

I too would like to express that I think universalism would end up killing the Atlasian system

X $Dan$(Devilman88), a begging citzen

Do you care explaining why?

The universalism system would need alot of active members, that we don't have. Just look at the past election, people only show up for the elections and that is it. Also this would end up killing the regions and their governments. Maybe the universalism system will be able to work at one point, but right now I believe we don't have the numbers of active members we need.

I too would like to express that I think universalism would end up killing the Atlasian system

X $Dan$(Devilman88), a begging citzen

Do you care explaining why?

The universalism system would need alot of active members, that we don't have. Just look at the past election, people only show up for the elections and that is it. Also this would end up killing the regions and their governments. Maybe the universalism system will be able to work at one point, but right now I believe we don't have the numbers of active members we need.

I have said in the past that I support making some kind of activity requirement for members to vote in the lower house, to prevent just that. Maybe with a universal system, those voters who just turn out to vote but can't do anything in Atlasia since they don't hold an office could just get involved in a universal system and they could propose stuff. Both ways, it's too early to speculate who will get involved and who will not.

I don't believe this would kill the regions, most of which are effectively dead right now to begin with. Either because of downright incompetent crap administrations or voters being more interested in federal matters than regional matters. If universalism passes, I think that an amendment allowing lower house members only to hold a regional office would be necessary.

We need to stimulate activity in Atlasia, and I believe universalism is the best system to provide that. I have yet to hear why the other systems would effectively stimulate activity and encourage non-members to join.

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

Just to quickly address your comments to him though:

1) That naive idea, the Universalist's Gamble as I've dubbed it, doesn't hold water in light of recent affairs. If people would actually care if they were given the opportunity to participate, we wouldn't have lost two Senators and two Delegates in the recent weeks. Moreover, if you suggest there's not enough to do, I'm not sure what more there would be to do under a system where the scales are tipped towards a government sim more than an election sim. In short, if people wanted to participate, those who already have that chance would be participating.

2) Universalism strikes me as a last ditch desperate effort, and not a serious proposal. It's "throw an office at everyone and hope they participate" which is not a serious way of running a government. Many have criticized my views that activity requirements for zombie voters would kill the game by purging the rolls of people who don't take a serious role. I've backed away from some of the hardline positions there, but I'm not sure how you can reconcile the threat of further choking the game to death by killing off 'inactive' members, and managing to hold a system that requires a great number of people.

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

Maybe I can do what I goddamn please.

Logged

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

Maybe I can do what I goddamn please.

Spare me.

Forgive me for not taking you the least bit seriously, then. If you're not actually willing to participate in a debate over your system of choice with someone who has spent a great deal of time trying to understand how all the systems would work and posted a very detailed thread about that proposal, and would rather ask questions of someone who just joined Atlasia, that's not really a discussion.

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

Just to quickly address your comments to him though:

1) That naive idea, the Universalist's Gamble as I've dubbed it, doesn't hold water in light of recent affairs. If people would actually care if they were given the opportunity to participate, we wouldn't have lost two Senators and two Delegates in the recent weeks. Moreover, if you suggest there's not enough to do, I'm not sure what more there would be to do under a system where the scales are tipped towards a government sim more than an election sim. In short, if people wanted to participate, those who already have that chance would be participating.

2) Universalism strikes me as a last ditch desperate effort, and not a serious proposal. It's "throw an office at everyone and hope they participate" which is not a serious way of running a government. Many have criticized my views that activity requirements for zombie voters would kill the game by purging the rolls of people who don't take a serious role. I've backed away from some of the hardline positions there, but I'm not sure how you can reconcile the threat of further choking the game to death by killing off 'inactive' members, and managing to hold a system that requires a great number of people.

Forgive me for not taking you the least bit seriously, then. If you're not actually willing to participate in a debate over your system of choice with someone who has spent a great deal of time trying to understand how all the systems would work and posted a very detailed thread about that proposal, and would rather ask questions of someone who just joined Atlasia, that's not really a discussion.

What have I just done with Dan if not debate right there? I think I can debate whoever I wish. Unless I misread the rules somewhere that forbids me from asking a legitimate question to a member, new or not. Anyways, that's irrelevant.

I have yet to hear why Presidential whatever will stimulate more membership. I doubt that people will magically appear in mass to join a presidential system over a universalist system. And I doubt people will leave massively if a universalist system comes about. I don't think the adoption of one system over another will make people appear in mass to join.

Atlasia is losing people. Atlasia is dying. In the end, I don't care what we adopt, we just need a system that will stimulate membership. Anything. Killing off the regions is to be considered seriously if we continue to see a decline in membership that could not sustain two levels of government, one of which is quasi-dead effectively in a majority of cases. Or else, we might as well kill off Atlasia as a whole if decline continues. I personally think universalism is the best system out there currently. But I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. Which I have not been until now. In addition, I'm European and I've never been a fan of presidentialism or semi-presidentialism.

Logged

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

I don't really give a damn whether you asked for my opinion or not. I posted a very lengthy criticism of Universalism, if you want to defend it, perhaps your time would be better spent there than going after newbie non-delegates.

You seem to be quite willing to accept anything newbie non-delegates say when they support your opinion. Either they know enough to express a considered opinion, in which case they can also be questioned, or alternatively they don't know enough about how Atlasia works, in which case, he shouldn't be saying that a universal system would be the death of Atlasia. Either he knows enough to support what he's saying, or he doesn't know enough to make an educated comment in the first place.

Indeed, I find it somewhat hypocritical that you are supportive of an unelected person making comments in here while being opposed to universalism. I mean, that's the whole nature of the universal system (which is why I don't have a problem with PiT, Devilman, et al commenting in here - Hashemite and I are both advocates of newbies and other unelected people being able to participate and contribute - it's you who is fundamentally opposed to universal participation).

1) That naive idea, the Universalist's Gamble as I've dubbed it, doesn't hold water in light of recent affairs. If people would actually care if they were given the opportunity to participate, we wouldn't have lost two Senators and two Delegates in the recent weeks. Moreover, if you suggest there's not enough to do, I'm not sure what more there would be to do under a system where the scales are tipped towards a government sim more than an election sim. In short, if people wanted to participate, those who already have that chance would be participating.

Your thread was clearly biased, even the thread title was such. I'm not going to post comments in a thread that is so obviously leaning one way. Furthermore, I've already responded to most of your arguments ad nauseum and I think it's pretty pointless saying again what I'd already said before if you're just going to ignore what I've had to say previously. You're not interested in improving the system, you just want to vote it down, you're not willing to budge, so I'm not interested in discussing it with you - it would be pointless and I'd just be wasting my time. Early on, I'd PM'd you to ask if you'd be interested in discussing my proposal, you said yes, I messaged you about it and you chose to not respond. I'm showing you the courtesy you showed me.

2) Universalism strikes me as a last ditch desperate effort, and not a serious proposal. It's "throw an office at everyone and hope they participate" which is not a serious way of running a government. Many have criticized my views that activity requirements for zombie voters would kill the game by purging the rolls of people who don't take a serious role. I've backed away from some of the hardline positions there, but I'm not sure how you can reconcile the threat of further choking the game to death by killing off 'inactive' members, and managing to hold a system that requires a great number of people.

Interesting that the thing you've campaigned most against - the problem of zombie voters, is now something you support. I guess when a universal system is the most effective way of ensuring participation, you'd have to support zombie voting in order to be credible in your opposition of a universal model.

Come now guys. I go to bed for four hours and this is what happens? Discussion should not be focused on tearing down one another over this.

Each delegate may pick and choose what information they take into account when working in the Convention. I would, however, urge the delegates to weigh all the options, work on each of the proposals and attempt to make this a more productive Convention.

In order to make this discussion more orderly and productive, may I ask that Hashemite, Smid, and Marokai, each of you present one post in which you state in a few paragraphs why you think Universalism is good/bad and a few ideas you have for it/ideas you have instead of it? Do this without directly addressing each other, but rather as a sort of "pitch" to the delegates.

In order to make this discussion more orderly and productive, may I ask that Hashemite, Smid, and Marokai, each of you present one post in which you state in a few paragraphs why you think Universalism is good/bad and a few ideas you have for it/ideas you have instead of it? Do this without directly addressing each other, but rather as a sort of "pitch" to the delegates.

I think that's already been done. Quite often, even.

Logged

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

In order to make this discussion more orderly and productive, may I ask that Hashemite, Smid, and Marokai, each of you present one post in which you state in a few paragraphs why you think Universalism is good/bad and a few ideas you have for it/ideas you have instead of it? Do this without directly addressing each other, but rather as a sort of "pitch" to the delegates.

I think that's already been done. Quite often, even.

It seems to have been more of a shouting match that largely ignored the actual merits of the proposals. Yes, ideas are scattered throughout the Convention, but it is always a good idea to collect your thoughts on a couple of occasions and put them down without addressing someone else's points at the same time.

I have yet to hear why Presidential whatever will stimulate more membership. I doubt that people will magically appear in mass to join a presidential system over a universalist system. And I doubt people will leave massively if a universalist system comes about. I don't think the adoption of one system over another will make people appear in mass to join.

Atlasia is losing people. Atlasia is dying. In the end, I don't care what we adopt, we just need a system that will stimulate membership. Anything. Killing off the regions is to be considered seriously if we continue to see a decline in membership that could not sustain two levels of government, one of which is quasi-dead effectively in a majority of cases. Or else, we might as well kill off Atlasia as a whole if decline continues. I personally think universalism is the best system out there currently. But I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. Which I have not been until now. In addition, I'm European and I've never been a fan of presidentialism or semi-presidentialism.

I have said in the past that I support making some kind of activity requirement for members to vote in the lower house, to prevent just that. Maybe with a universal system, those voters who just turn out to vote but can't do anything in Atlasia since they don't hold an office could just get involved in a universal system and they could propose stuff. Both ways, it's too early to speculate who will get involved and who will not.

I don't believe this would kill the regions, most of which are effectively dead right now to begin with. Either because of downright incompetent crap administrations or voters being more interested in federal matters than regional matters. If universalism passes, I think that an amendment allowing lower house members only to hold a regional office would be necessary.

We need to stimulate activity in Atlasia, and I believe universalism is the best system to provide that. I have yet to hear why the other systems would effectively stimulate activity and encourage non-members to join.

The Prime Minister of New Zealand:17:40 oakvale the people are bad and shouldn't be allowed vote whenever possible17:40 oakvale The average voter wants to end austerity, bring back hanging and put all immigrants in death

2) Universalism strikes me as a last ditch desperate effort, and not a serious proposal. It's "throw an office at everyone and hope they participate" which is not a serious way of running a government. Many have criticized my views that activity requirements for zombie voters would kill the game by purging the rolls of people who don't take a serious role. I've backed away from some of the hardline positions there, but I'm not sure how you can reconcile the threat of further choking the game to death by killing off 'inactive' members, and managing to hold a system that requires a great number of people.

I think part of the reason for having the Constitutional Convention is that we are desperate to do something to increase activity, and perhaps it is a last ditch effort. I don't view any one type of proposal more desperate or less desperate than another.

I support universalism right now as I think it is worth a shot. I could be wrong. It could possibly make things worse instead of better. If we do end up with some form of it and it turns out to be a failure, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong and it was a bad idea. But if we didn't have a problem in the first place, I doubt we would be having a Con Con.

Perhaps any any type of universalism needs an escape clause, such as "If a majority of votes in the (house that uses universalism) have less than a majority of current voters participating, in the first (time between elections) then the Constitutional Convention shall resume" or something to that effect.

Perhaps any any type of universalism needs an escape clause, such as "If a majority of votes in the (house that uses universalism) have less than a majority of current voters participating, in the first (time between elections) then the Constitutional Convention shall resume" or something to that effect.

Is there any chance of that not happening? Even if we interpret current voters to be only those who voted in the last election as well as are excluded by virtue of membership in the 15-member upper house, we're talking about 45-50 voters. Considering that we're taking out most of the more active members who would likely be in the upper house, a majority would need 22-25 people. Very few if any votes would achieve that.

Perhaps any any type of universalism needs an escape clause, such as "If a majority of votes in the (house that uses universalism) have less than a majority of current voters participating, in the first (time between elections) then the Constitutional Convention shall resume" or something to that effect.

Is there any chance of that not happening? Even if we interpret current voters to be only those who voted in the last election as well as are excluded by virtue of membership in the 15-member upper house, we're talking about 45-50 voters. Considering that we're taking out most of the more active members who would likely be in the upper house, a majority would need 22-25 people. Very few if any votes would achieve that.

Good point. Maybe adjust something to say 33% or 25% instead of 50%. What would be considered an acceptable level in judging whether or not a form of universalism is successful?

Perhaps any any type of universalism needs an escape clause, such as "If a majority of votes in the (house that uses universalism) have less than a majority of current voters participating, in the first (time between elections) then the Constitutional Convention shall resume" or something to that effect.

Is there any chance of that not happening? Even if we interpret current voters to be only those who voted in the last election as well as are excluded by virtue of membership in the 15-member upper house, we're talking about 45-50 voters. Considering that we're taking out most of the more active members who would likely be in the upper house, a majority would need 22-25 people. Very few if any votes would achieve that.

Good point. Maybe adjust something to say 33% or 25% instead of 50%. What would be considered an acceptable level in judging whether or not a form of universalism is successful?

Strictly speaking, more active members than the elected house (25% would only need 11-12 votes on average, which would fail this with a 15-member house). The point here is that if a universal house has fewer active members than the elected one, meaning that one would have more clout by being an active member of the universal house, then it creates significant unbalance between the two houses as the universal house essentially becomes the more powerful one.